| Re: Qbasic [message #316898 is a reply to message #316888] |
Fri, 22 April 2016 12:24   |
|
|
Originally posted by: JimP
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:18:02 -0400, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com>
wrote:
> In article <slrnnhidf9.18p.mausg@Smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>
>> What was he after death?
>> If he has descendents who are Mormons, they may have had him converted
>>
>
> No other religion accepts the post humus[1] conversion of people from
> their religion.
>
> [1] typo left as is, with malice(?) aforethought.
Rumor has it that is one of the reasons they bought up most of the
commercial ancestry sites. More people to baptise and convert to their
religion after death.
But then, they have more live members than the alleged maximum souls
allowed into heaven, according to them.
--
JimP.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316909 is a reply to message #316873] |
Fri, 22 April 2016 15:31 |
|
|
Originally posted by: 3899jk
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20160422071106.1cfa09dddd01778c66c8c813@eircom.net...
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:33:05 +1000
> "3899jk" <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:20160419060311.f446ee3cbaea078505b74059@eircom.net...
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:21:24 -0500
>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:44:46 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>> <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On 18/04/2016 14:38, JimP wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:43:08 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>> >> <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 17/04/2016 10:53, Huge wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 2016-04-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:18:08 PM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com
>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Those business pages never mention morality, which is a
>>>> >>>>>> unagreeable
>>>> >>>>>> subject anyway, but is a tobacco company as unobjectionable as,
>>>> >>>>>> say, a bottled water one?
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Morality is the government's job,
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> God forbid.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Morality and ethics are religious matters.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I know a number of ethical and moral atheists, and a number of
>>>> >> untheical religious folowers, so your claim holds no water.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >Atheism is a religion.
>>>>
>>>> They don't think so. I know some religious groups claim atheism is a
>>>> religion, but its lack of religion.
>>>
>>> Disagree, agnosticism ("I really don't know") is a lack of religion
>>> athiesm ("There are no gods") is a religion in that it is a belief
>>> about
>>> gods.
>>
>> Plenty of beliefs have nothing to do with religion.
>
> Of course that's why I said "belief about gods", they all have to do
> with religion.
Not with an atheist that insists that there isn't a shred of evidence of any
god at all.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316916 is a reply to message #316909] |
Fri, 22 April 2016 16:01 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"3899jk" wrote:
> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:20160422071106.1cfa09dddd01778c66c8c813@eircom.net...
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:33:05 +1000
>> "3899jk" <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>>> news:20160419060311.f446ee3cbaea078505b74059@eircom.net...
>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:21:24 -0500
>>>> JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:44:46 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>> > <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >On 18/04/2016 14:38, JimP wrote:
>>>> > >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:43:08 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>> > >> <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>> On 17/04/2016 10:53, Huge wrote:
>>>> > >>>> On 2016-04-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:18:08 PM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com
>>>> > >>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> Those business pages never mention morality, which is a
>>>> > >>>>>> unagreeable
>>>> > >>>>>> subject anyway, but is a tobacco company as unobjectionable
>>>> > >>>>>> as,
>>>> > >>>>>> say, a bottled water one?
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> Morality is the government's job,
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> God forbid.
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Morality and ethics are religious matters.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I know a number of ethical and moral atheists, and a number of
>>>> > >> untheical religious folowers, so your claim holds no water.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >
>>>> > >Atheism is a religion.
>>>> >
>>>> > They don't think so. I know some religious groups claim atheism is a
>>>> > religion, but its lack of religion.
>>>>
>>>> Disagree, agnosticism ("I really don't know") is a lack of religion
>>>> athiesm ("There are no gods") is a religion in that it is a belief
>>>> about
>>>> gods.
>>>
>>> Plenty of beliefs have nothing to do with religion.
>>
>> Of course that's why I said "belief about gods", they all have to do
>> with religion.
>
> Not with an atheist that insists that there isn't a shred of evidence of
> any god at all.
You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims he
*knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your description
is of an agnostic.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316929 is a reply to message #316916] |
Fri, 22 April 2016 22:21 |
|
|
Originally posted by: 3899jk
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dnve9aFtstaU1@mid.individual.net...
> "3899jk" wrote:
>
>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>> news:20160422071106.1cfa09dddd01778c66c8c813@eircom.net...
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:33:05 +1000
>>> "3899jk" <3899jk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:20160419060311.f446ee3cbaea078505b74059@eircom.net...
>>>> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:21:24 -0500
>>>> > JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:44:46 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>> >> <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >On 18/04/2016 14:38, JimP wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:43:08 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>> >> >> <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>> On 17/04/2016 10:53, Huge wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> On 2016-04-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:18:08 PM UTC-6,
>>>> >> >>>>> ma...@mail.com
>>>> >> >>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> Those business pages never mention morality, which is a
>>>> >> >>>>>> unagreeable
>>>> >> >>>>>> subject anyway, but is a tobacco company as unobjectionable
>>>> >> >>>>>> as,
>>>> >> >>>>>> say, a bottled water one?
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>> Morality is the government's job,
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> God forbid.
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Morality and ethics are religious matters.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> I know a number of ethical and moral atheists, and a number of
>>>> >> >> untheical religious folowers, so your claim holds no water.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Atheism is a religion.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> They don't think so. I know some religious groups claim atheism is a
>>>> >> religion, but its lack of religion.
>>>> >
>>>> > Disagree, agnosticism ("I really don't know") is a lack of religion
>>>> > athiesm ("There are no gods") is a religion in that it is a belief
>>>> > about
>>>> > gods.
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of beliefs have nothing to do with religion.
>>>
>>> Of course that's why I said "belief about gods", they all have to do
>>> with religion.
>>
>> Not with an atheist that insists that there isn't a shred of evidence of
>> any god at all.
>
> You have managed to miss the entire point.
Nope, you have.
> A serious atheist claims he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and
> never will.
BULLSHIT.
> Your description is of an agnostic.
Nope, an agnostic says he doesn't know if there are any
gods and often that he doesn't care if there are or not.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316956 is a reply to message #316916] |
Sun, 24 April 2016 05:21 |
Andreas Eder
Messages: 134
Registered: October 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
> description is of an agnostic.
Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
'Andreas
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316957 is a reply to message #316956] |
Sun, 24 April 2016 06:43 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>,
Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>
>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>> description is of an agnostic.
>
> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
How could you know that?
There are extensive asteroid surveys ongoing for the last ~30 years,
and they have found thousands++ of them. But they haven't found nearly
all of them in the 10-100m range, and are only at the final stages of
the 100-1000m ones, still finding the odd one.
Below 10m there are probably 100k+ more to find, and they haven't even
got good models for how the distribution to further smaller ones are.
So a ~15cm teapot could be there. Even a million of them.
Even in earth crossing orbits. We could easily be burning a hundred or
so teapots in the athmosphere yearly and not be aware of it.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316958 is a reply to message #316956] |
Sun, 24 April 2016 06:39 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:21:10 +0200
Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>
>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>> description is of an agnostic.
>
> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
I would say not, to be a religious statement it would have to be
about god(s), at least that's the way I see it. And yes "There are no gods"
is a statement about gods as is "I don't know if there are gods" and the
related but stronger "Nobody can know if there are gods". Your statement is
about teapots not gods, of course if it was in reply to "God is a teapot
orbiting between Jupiter and Saturn" then it would become a religious
statement.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316959 is a reply to message #316956] |
Sun, 24 April 2016 07:43 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>
> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>
>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>> description is of an agnostic.
>
> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316967 is a reply to message #316959] |
Sun, 24 April 2016 12:20 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>
>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>
>>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>> description is of an agnostic.
>>
>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>
> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
A teapot can't just be a naturally occurring, funny shaped rock.
It has to actually be capable of brewing tea, made of materials
that would stand up to that usage.
Despite the large number of objects that might be in orbit between
Jupiter and Saturn, I think the most likely number of teapots
in that location is close enough to zero as to conclude that the
actual number is in fact zero.
Similar statements might apply to the worlds current crop of
claimed divinities. Especially the claims full of glaring
absurdities, like golden plates. I'd pick on other groups
but see little point, any educated person should be aware enough
to know about this stuff.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316971 is a reply to message #316967] |
Sun, 24 April 2016 16:01 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 1004
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
> A teapot can't just be a naturally occurring, funny shaped rock.
> It has to actually be capable of brewing tea, made of materials
> that would stand up to that usage.
This sounds like a tempest in a teapot.
The question, with regard to supernatural deities -- God or ghod or
gods -- is, What's the default case?
If the default case is that one or more supernatural deities exist,
then you have to deny or counter the default case in order to get back
to zero/null/nil. "Atheist" is not single-valued, representing either
reversion to the null case *or* active opposition to the positive
case.
If the default case is "unknown/undefined/null", then you have to make
an exertion to get to "exists", another, different one to get to "does
not exist". "Atheist" is congruent with the etymology of the word:
without [a] god.
If a variable has default value x==0, then assigning it either +1 or -1
requires action. If it has the default value x==1, then it requires
action to get back to the x==0 state but that is not the same as
moving either way from x==0.
ObAFC: Now you can argue about *that*, state-determined machine, path
dependence etc. etc.
ObAFC: Which reminds me: Just managed to recover from aging DOS floppy
and modify for Linux my implementation of Ashby's "Homeostat" I wrote
in OO XLisp 20 years ago. Small potatoes for y'all that have had
careers in computers but cool stuff for me.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316973 is a reply to message #316957] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 02:16 |
Bob Martin
Messages: 158
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
in 664159 20160424 114317 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>,
> Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>
>>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>> description is of an agnostic.
>>
>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>
> How could you know that?
>
> There are extensive asteroid surveys ongoing for the last ~30 years,
> and they have found thousands++ of them. But they haven't found nearly
> all of them in the 10-100m range, and are only at the final stages of
> the 100-1000m ones, still finding the odd one.
>
> Below 10m there are probably 100k+ more to find, and they haven't even
> got good models for how the distribution to further smaller ones are.
>
> So a ~15cm teapot could be there. Even a million of them.
>
> Even in earth crossing orbits. We could easily be burning a hundred or
> so teapots in the athmosphere yearly and not be aware of it.
It's about evidence - or absence of.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316974 is a reply to message #316973] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 04:10 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <do5r1dFhi59U1@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
> in 664159 20160424 114317 Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>,
>> Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
>>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>
>>>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> description is of an agnostic.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>
>> How could you know that?
>>
>> There are extensive asteroid surveys ongoing for the last ~30 years,
>> and they have found thousands++ of them. But they haven't found nearly
>> all of them in the 10-100m range, and are only at the final stages of
>> the 100-1000m ones, still finding the odd one.
>>
>> Below 10m there are probably 100k+ more to find, and they haven't even
>> got good models for how the distribution to further smaller ones are.
>>
>> So a ~15cm teapot could be there. Even a million of them.
>>
>> Even in earth crossing orbits. We could easily be burning a hundred or
>> so teapots in the athmosphere yearly and not be aware of it.
>
> It's about evidence - or absence of.
And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn it
in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was on it?
(People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they work).
Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A certainty
for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will not have for
many hundreds of years.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316977 is a reply to message #316974] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 10:42 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
{snip}
>
> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn it
> in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was on it?
> (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they work).
>
> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>
> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
> being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A certainty
> for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will not have for
> many hundreds of years.
>
> -- mrr
>
It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316979 is a reply to message #316956] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 11:08 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5354
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-24, Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>
>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>> description is of an agnostic.
>
> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
It's not a teapot, it's a toaster. And Jimmy Neutron put it there.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316981 is a reply to message #316977] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 11:55 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
> {snip}
>
>>
>> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn it
>> in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was on it?
>> (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they work).
>>
>> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>
>> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>> being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A certainty
>> for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will not have for
>> many hundreds of years.
>>
>> -- mrr
>>
>
> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316982 is a reply to message #316979] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 11:55 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 25 Apr 2016 15:08:03 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-24, Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>
>>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>> description is of an agnostic.
>>
>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>
> It's not a teapot, it's a toaster. And Jimmy Neutron put it there.
Nope, there are teapots. It's an invasion fleet from the planet
Gong.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316993 is a reply to message #316982] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 17:56 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <20160425165514.f8fe546a198e6c3043cba526@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2016 15:08:03 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-04-24, Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>>
>>>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>>> description is of an agnostic.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>>
>> It's not a teapot, it's a toaster. And Jimmy Neutron put it there.
>
> Nope, there are teapots. It's an invasion fleet from the planet
> Gong.
Which were going to invade when they were hit by a flying manhole cover,
knocking out their leader and comms hub; necessating a 100k year round
trip to their base for orders.
-- mrr
>
> --
> Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
> C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
> The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
> You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316994 is a reply to message #316981] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 18:05 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn it
>>> in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was on it?
>>> (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they work).
>>>
>>> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>
>>> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>>> being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A certainty
>>> for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will not have for
>>> many hundreds of years.
>>>
>>> -- mrr
>>>
>>
>> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>
> Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric resistance
they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316998 is a reply to message #316634] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 21:13 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> Wrote in message:
> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>> Horsehockey. Show me the thousands of atheist missionaries
>> out there forcibly converting the savages to the only true
>> religion. 99.99%
of athiests just wish the religious nutcakes
>> would leave them alone
and stay out of their private lives.
>
> That is mostly just an observation that Chritianity is more
> popular than atheism.
Globally, Christianity (32%) is only about twice as popular as
atheism (15%), yet the former have killed a LOT more than twice
as many people as the latter--as have many other religions that
are less popular.
> After my earlier post I realized that most of the women I have
> had long-term relationships were rather serious Christians. ...
> None of them tried to convert me.
If they had a serious problem with you being non-Christian, they
probably wouldn't have entered the relationship in the first
place.
My experience is that most Catholics and mainline Protestants are
happy to live and let live, at least until there are kids and
often even then, but most Evangelical Protestants are
not.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk        "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316999 is a reply to message #316742] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 21:24 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> Wrote in message:
> I dislike the phoniness of it all. When I was a kid the gifts and Santa,
> not religion, were already the centerpoint of it all. Now it is worse
> people wishing each other "Happy Holidays" and sending cards to each other
> that studiously avoid using the word "Christmas". When I hear happy
> holidays it grates on my nerves.
"Happy Holidays" was invented by Christians who got sick of
saying/writing "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year" over and
over. It is not, as Faux News claims, a case of Christians being
persecuted by non-Christians.
> I liked the old way better, people who didn't look Semitic were treated as
> honorary Christians for the season. It seems a harmless way to avoid
> friction. Clearly not everyone agrees that it is harmless. I think there is
> a fear that people will start wandering into churches and who knows what
> might happen next?
That is how I've always considered it, but its understandable that
said non-Christians might have a problem with it, especially
given how many Christians (including an entire political party)
are actively persecuting non-Christians these days.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk        "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317000 is a reply to message #316626] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 21:39 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2016 10:44 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> Atheism is a religion.
>>
>> Not believing in a religion is a religion? Doesn't that make the term
>> basically meaningless? NOT-X == X?
>
> Atheism is not 'not believing in religion'. It is the theory or belief
> that God does not exist.
There is a critical difference between "no belief in a god(s)" and
"a belief in no god(s)". The term "atheism" is often applied to
both meanings, but even the most militant atheists (e.g. Dawkins)
seem to fall under the former, whereas the latter seems to be a
no more than a theist strawman created for this very
argument.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk        "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317001 is a reply to message #316638] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 21:49 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
> so if one is putting people
> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist", "Catholic",
> "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative", "Orthodox", "Buddhist",
> "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be one of those pigeonholes.
That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
fruit.
Such tactics may be expedient when a database demands SOME value
for every row, but that does not make it factually
correct.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk        "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317003 is a reply to message #311288] |
Mon, 25 April 2016 22:14 |
Stephen Sprunk
Messages: 2166
Registered: March 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> Wrote in message:
> The "True Believer" atheist might object to people putting up the
> Christmas Crib on their own lawn.
Atheists don't have a problem with you putting a religious display
on YOUR property. What they object to is you putting such on
public property, or worse, you demanding (via the govt) they put
such on THEIR property.
> But in the US, the government is not
> allowed to establish (favor or require) a religion, so the town hall
> would need to make room for other religions as well. ... town hall is
> going to look like one of those lots where they sell concrete lawn
> decor. We're all probably better off keeping the displays off public
> property.
Many groups formerly pushing Christian symbols/texts in public
schools and such are now demanding separation of church and state
after courts ruled that some non-Christian group (most commonly
Satanists) is entitled to equal access.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk        "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317005 is a reply to message #316994] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 01:14 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:55 +0200
Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> wrote:
> In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>> {snip}
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn
>>>> it in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was
>>>> on it? (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they
>>>> work).
>>>>
>>>> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>>
>>>> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>>>> being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A
>>>> certainty for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will
>>>> not have for many hundreds of years.
>>>>
>>>> -- mrr
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>>
>> Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
>
> Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric resistance
> they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
Orbital speed round there is about 2km/s you can't hit a golf ball
that hard.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317006 is a reply to message #317005] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 03:08 |
Stan Barr
Messages: 598
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 06:14:50 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:55 +0200
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn
>>>> > it in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was
>>>> > on it? (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they
>>>> > work).
>>>> >
>>>> > Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>> >
>>>> > I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>>>> > being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A
>>>> > certainty for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will
>>>> > not have for many hundreds of years.
>>>> >
>>>> > -- mrr
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>>>
>>> Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
>>
>> Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric resistance
>> they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
>
> Orbital speed round there is about 2km/s you can't hit a golf ball
> that hard.
>
We had a discussion on here some years back as whether it was possible
to stand on a mountain on the moon with a rifle and shoot yourself in
the back. I forget the outcone of the discussion...
--
Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317010 is a reply to message #317001] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 07:02 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-26, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>> so if one is putting people
>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist", "Catholic",
>> "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative", "Orthodox", "Buddhist",
>> "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be one of those pigeonholes.
>
> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
> fruit.
>
> Such tactics may be expedient when a database demands SOME value
> for every row, but that does not make it factually
> correct.
>
> S
>
You are getting close to the pre-zero position in maths here?
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317011 is a reply to message #317005] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 07:39 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 26/04/2016 06:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:55 +0200
> Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> {snip}
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn
>>>> > it in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was
>>>> > on it? (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they
>>>> > work).
>>>> >
>>>> > Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>> >
>>>> > I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>>>> > being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A
>>>> > certainty for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will
>>>> > not have for many hundreds of years.
>>>> >
>>>> > -- mrr
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>>>
>>> Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
>>
>> Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric resistance
>> they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
>
> Orbital speed round there is about 2km/s you can't hit a golf ball
> that hard.
>
Golf balls were hit on the ISS, which is already in orbit. Consequently
the balls started with orbital speed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317013 is a reply to message #316998] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 07:42 |
jmfbahciv
Messages: 6173
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> Wrote in message:
>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>> Horsehockey. Show me the thousands of atheist missionaries
>>> out there forcibly converting the savages to the only true
>>> religion. 99.99%
> of athiests just wish the religious nutcakes
>>> would leave them alone
> and stay out of their private lives.
>>
>> That is mostly just an observation that Chritianity is more
>> popular than atheism.
>
> Globally, Christianity (32%) is only about twice as popular as
> atheism (15%), yet the former have killed a LOT more than twice
> as many people as the latter--as have many other religions that
> are less popular.
>
>> After my earlier post I realized that most of the women I have
>> had long-term relationships were rather serious Christians. ...
>> None of them tried to convert me.
>
> If they had a serious problem with you being non-Christian, they
> probably wouldn't have entered the relationship in the first
> place.
>
> My experience is that most Catholics and mainline Protestants are
> happy to live and let live, at least until there are kids and
> often even then, but most Evangelical Protestants are
> not.
I've noticed that the most rabid of them are born-agains; just
like drug/booze addicts, they have a need to push their drug
of choice on everyone else.
/BAH
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317014 is a reply to message #317001] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 07:50 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>> so if one is putting people
>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be one
>> of those pigeonholes.
>
> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
> fruit.
No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
members are athiests - they believe there are no gods. So to be athiest
does not imply that you have no religion, simply that you believe there are
no gods.
The only ism I can think of that corresponds properly to "none" in
yur example is the rather weak agnosticism of the form "I don't know
anything about gods, but perhaps you do" rather than the strong agnosticism
of the form "I don't know anything about gods and neither do you".
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317016 is a reply to message #317011] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 08:54 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:39:11 +0100
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On 26/04/2016 06:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:55 +0200
>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
>>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> > {snip}
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn
>>>> >> it in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was
>>>> >> on it? (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they
>>>> >> work).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>>>> >> being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A
>>>> >> certainty for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will
>>>> >> not have for many hundreds of years.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -- mrr
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>>>>
>>>> Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
>>>
>>> Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric
>>> resistance they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
>>
>> Orbital speed round there is about 2km/s you can't hit a golf
>> ball that hard.
>>
>
> Golf balls were hit on the ISS, which is already in orbit. Consequently
> the balls started with orbital speed.
I was thinking of the ones lost on the moon, I didn't know there
had been some hit on the ISS. I wonder if you could hit the moon from ISS
with a golf ball - anyone know the required delta-v for a moon impact from
ISS orbit ?
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317018 is a reply to message #317016] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 11:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> I was thinking of the ones lost on the moon, I didn't know there
> had been some hit on the ISS. I wonder if you could hit the moon from ISS
> with a golf ball - anyone know the required delta-v for a moon impact from
> ISS orbit ?
From LEO to Lunar surface is about 5.5 km/s
--NK1G
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317019 is a reply to message #316998] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 11:49 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8402
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> Wrote in message:
>> "Scott Lurndal" wrote:
>>> Horsehockey. Show me the thousands of atheist missionaries
>>> out there forcibly converting the savages to the only true
>>> religion. 99.99%
of athiests just wish the religious nutcakes
>>> would leave them alone
and stay out of their private lives.
>>
>> That is mostly just an observation that Chritianity is more
>> popular than atheism.
>
> Globally, Christianity (32%) is only about twice as popular as
> atheism (15%), yet the former have killed a LOT more than twice
> as many people as the latter--as have many other religions that
> are less popular.
>
Probably over the last couple of millenea, but more recently Stalin, an
athiest, killed a lot of people, and there is no clear consensus about what
Hitler believed either.
>> After my earlier post I realized that most of the women I have
>> had long-term relationships were rather serious Christians. ...
>> None of them tried to convert me.
>
> If they had a serious problem with you being non-Christian, they
> probably wouldn't have entered the relationship in the first
> place.
>
> My experience is that most Catholics and mainline Protestants are
> happy to live and let live, at least until there are kids and
> often even then, but most Evangelical Protestants are
> not.
>
> S
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317020 is a reply to message #311288] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 11:49 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8402
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> so if one is putting people
>>>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be one
>>>> of those pigeonholes.
>>>
>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>> fruit.
>>
>> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>> members are athiests
>
> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>
I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317021 is a reply to message #317018] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 11:39 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:18:10 -0500
Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> I was thinking of the ones lost on the moon, I didn't know there
>> had been some hit on the ISS. I wonder if you could hit the moon from
>> ISS with a golf ball - anyone know the required delta-v for a moon
>> impact from ISS orbit ?
>
> From LEO to Lunar surface is about 5.5 km/s
Ouch! Not be doing that with a golf club then.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317022 is a reply to message #317016] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 12:15 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <20160426135409.2e55a36b92ee462793ae034f@eircom.net>,
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:39:11 +0100
> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2016 06:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:55 +0200
>>> Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <20160425165538.e93227caa2fba6c4ecf5acf0@eircom.net>,
>>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:42:52 +0100
>>>> > Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 25/04/2016 09:10, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> >> {snip}
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> And they managed to eject a manhole cover from earth orbit (or burn
>>>> >>> it in the athmosphere on the way up). What if someone's teapot was
>>>> >>> on it? (People tend to bring tea and coffee close to everywhere they
>>>> >>> work).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Having it in orbit around Jupiter would not be impossible.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I reacted to the certainty the original poster assumed about there
>>>> >>> being no teapots in solar orbit between two major planets. A
>>>> >>> certainty for which we have scant real evidence, and probably will
>>>> >>> not have for many hundreds of years.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> -- mrr
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It is good that we are not talking about a coffee cup on the Moon.
>>>> >
>>>> > Nah, just a few lost golf balls.
>>>>
>>>> Sent really far, in the low gravity and absence of athmospheric
>>>> resistance they went quite far, if not actually into orbit.
>>>
>>> Orbital speed round there is about 2km/s you can't hit a golf
>>> ball that hard.
>>>
>>
>> Golf balls were hit on the ISS, which is already in orbit. Consequently
>> the balls started with orbital speed.
>
> I was thinking of the ones lost on the moon, I didn't know there
> had been some hit on the ISS. I wonder if you could hit the moon from ISS
> with a golf ball - anyone know the required delta-v for a moon impact from
> ISS orbit ?
That's easy. (Orbital speed of ISS - Orbital speed of moon) * sqrt(2);
of (7.68 km/sec - 1.01 km/sec) * 1.41 = 9.41 km/sec.
Not likely for a golf ball. Around 6 times the highest velocity of
a "regular" gun's bullet.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317023 is a reply to message #317020] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 12:28 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <1300006837.483378389.146488.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-04-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:49:18 -0500 (CDT)
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>>> > so if one is putting people
>>>> > into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>>> > "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>>> > "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also be one
>>>> > of those pigeonholes.
>>>>
>>>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>>>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>>>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>>>> fruit.
>>>
>>> No it is not the same thing at all. Buddhism is a religion and it's
>>> members are athiests
>>
>> Apart from the ones who believe Buddha was (is?) a God, that is.
>>
>
> I'm not sure there are any of these, but I believe many Buddhists also
> practice some other form of religion, such as in Tibet.
Buddism raises an important point about the "god" idea. If we do
have a creator, would we be able to identify "it/him/her" at all, not
to speak of actually having any form of communication.
Jfr Marvin Minsky's paper about being able to communicate with
a random alien.
Would Nirvana qualify as a god, or not.
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317024 is a reply to message #317021] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 12:44 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Lawrence Statton NK1G
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:18:10 -0500
> Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>>> I was thinking of the ones lost on the moon, I didn't know there
>>> had been some hit on the ISS. I wonder if you could hit the moon from
>>> ISS with a golf ball - anyone know the required delta-v for a moon
>>> impact from ISS orbit ?
>>
>> From LEO to Lunar surface is about 5.5 km/s
>
> Ouch! Not be doing that with a golf club then.
Probably not :)
That was assuming a Hohmann transfer from LEO to lunar orbit, and then a
landing orbit. Which requries a golf ball with an attached thruster :)
(They sell those for bad golfists, right?)
On the other hand ... if we just want to *HIT* the moon with a
golf-ball, you just need (half of) a Hohmann orbit from LEO to intercept
the moon ...
--NK1G
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317026 is a reply to message #317010] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 13:38 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5354
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-26, mausg@mail.com <mausg@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-04-26, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> Wrote in message:
>>
>>> so if one is putting people
>>> into pigeonholes labelled "Presbyterian", "Methodist", "Baptist",
>>> "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Sunni", "Shia", "Reform", "Conservative",
>>> "Orthodox", "Buddhist", "Hindu", and so on, "Atheist" would also
>>> be one of those pigeonholes.
>>
>> That's akin to asking what kind of fruit is in the basket, getting
>> the answer "none", and then declaring that "none" is a distinct
>> type of fruit rather than recognizing it as the absence of ANY
>> fruit.
>>
>> Such tactics may be expedient when a database demands SOME value
>> for every row, but that does not make it factually
>> correct.
>
> You are getting close to the pre-zero position in maths here?
And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to computers.
Then we get into the Zen of programming:
char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
What is the sound of one modem communicating?
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317027 is a reply to message #317026] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 14:31 |
Walter Banks
Messages: 1000
Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-26 1:38 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
> And if we're not careful, the thread will drift right back to
> computers. Then we get into the Zen of programming:
>
> char *nothing = {"0", " ", "", NULL};
>
> If that isn't enough we can argue over the value of nothing[-1]...
>
> What is the sound of one modem communicating?
>
How long has it been since anyone has heard a modem connecting, with an
acoustically coupled handset?
That should start something :)
w..
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #317030 is a reply to message #316959] |
Tue, 26 April 2016 15:37 |
Andreas Eder
Messages: 134
Registered: October 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke @ 2016-04-24 07:43 +04:
> In article <8760v7fjll.fsf@eder.anydns.info>, a_eder_muc@web.de says...
>>
>> Osmium @ 2016-04-22 15:01 +05:
>>
>>> You have managed to miss the entire point. A serious atheist claims
>>> he *knows* that gods do not exist, never did, and never will. Your
>>> description is of an agnostic.
>>
>> Ok, so if I say I know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between
>> Jupiter and Saturn, that is a religious statement?
>
> It is--you have no way of _knowing_ that. The strongest statement I
> would make is that we know of no plausible mechanism by which there
> could be such a teapot. But to state that you know this with certainty
> takes you into the realm of knowing by revelation.
You are right. I can not know this with mathematical certainty. But what
do we know absolutely certain? At least I am so certain about not being a
teapot out there, that I would bet a lovely sum of money on it. :-)
'Andreas
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
